Orsolini et al v. Mead Clark Lumber Co. et al
Filing
30
STIPULATION AND ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/13/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
TERESA S. RENAKER (State Bar #187800)
LINDSAY NAKO (State Bar #239090)
JULIE WILENSKY (State Bar #271765)
LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
476 9th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 839-6824
Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
Email: trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com
lnako@lewisfeinberg.com
jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com
J. TIMOTHY NARDELL (State Bar #184444)
NARDELL CHITSAZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
790 Mission Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901
Telephone: (415) 485-2200
Facsimile: (415) 457-1420
Email: tim@ncalegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARIO L. ORSOLINI and
ANDREW M. LEVINE
12
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
OAKLAND DIVISION
16
17
18
19
MARIO L. ORSOLINI and ANDREW M.
LEVINE,
Plaintiffs,
20
21
22
23
24
Case No. C-10-04478 SBA
STIPULATION AND ORDER
CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION
vs.
MEAD CLARK LUMBER CO. AKA
MEAD CLARK LUMBER COMPANY,
INC., and RANDAL J. DESTRUEL,
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
1
This Stipulation is made by and between Plaintiffs Mario L. Orsolini and Andrew M.
2
Levine (“Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Defendants Mead Clark Lumber Co. AKA Mead
3
Clark Lumber Company, Inc., and Randal J. Destruel (“Defendants”), on the other, by and
4
through their respective counsel of record, with respect to the following facts:
5
6
7
8
9
WHEREAS Plaintiffs brought the above-entitled action (“the action”) as a putative class
action;
WHEREAS the parties to the action agree that it is in their interests and in the interest of
judicial economy to stipulate to class certification;
WHEREAS the proposed class includes approximately 200 participants in the Mead
10
Clark Lumber Company, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the “Plan”) and their beneficiaries, in
11
satisfaction of the numerosity requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1);
12
WHEREAS the parties agree that Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants breached their
13
fiduciary duties to the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan is common to all members of the
14
proposed class, in satisfaction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2);
15
WHEREAS the parties agree that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the
16
proposed class because they are based on the same set of operative facts, in satisfaction of Fed.
17
R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3);
18
19
20
WHEREAS the parties agree that Plaintiffs Mario L. Orsolini and Andrew M. Levine are
adequate class representatives in this action, in satisfaction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4);
WHEREAS the parties agree it would be appropriate for the court to appoint Plaintiffs’
21
counsel, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., and Nardell Chitsaz & Associates,
22
LLP, as class counsel, based on the considerations set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) and the
23
information provided in the Declarations of Teresa S. Renaker and J. Timothy Nardell, filed
24
herewith; and
25
WHEREAS the parties agree that this class action is maintainable under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26
23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B), and/or 23(b)(2), in that certification of a class on Plaintiffs’ claim for
27
breach of fiduciary duty would prevent “inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
28
individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
2
1
party opposing the class”; resolution of Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty will, as a
2
practical matter, dispose of Class members’ claims; and/or the actions alleged by Plaintiffs to
3
constitute breaches of fiduciary duty were actions which are generally applicable to the class as
4
defined below; and
5
WHEREAS the parties agree to the class definition set forth below; and
6
WHEREAS the parties agree that it would be appropriate for the Court to order the
7
mailing of written notice of class certification to class members, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
8
23(c)(2), and Plaintiffs’ counsel agrees to bear the costs of mailing notice.
9
10
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this action, by and through their undersigned
attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows:
11
A.
This action meets the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
12
B.
This action should be certified as a class action maintainable under Fed. R. Civ. P.
13
23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B), and/or 23(b)(2), as to the Claim for Relief set forth in the Complaint,
14
with Plaintiffs Mario L. Orsolini and Andrew M. Levine as class representatives, and Lewis,
15
Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., and Nardell Chitsaz & Associates, LLP, as class
16
counsel.
17
C.
The Class should be defined as follows: All persons who are or were participants
18
in the Plan on or after October 1, 2008, and as to each such person, his or her beneficiaries,
19
alternate payees, representatives, and successors in interest; provided, however, that
20
notwithstanding the foregoing, the class does not include any person who is an individual
21
defendant in this lawsuit or any individual defendant’s immediate family member, beneficiary,
22
alternate payee, representative, or successor in interest, except for immediate family,
23
beneficiaries, alternate payees, representatives, or successors-in-interest who themselves are or
24
were participants in the Plan, who shall be considered members of the class with respect to their
25
own Plan accounts.
26
27
D.
Within 60 days of the Court’s Order on class certification, Plaintiffs shall submit a
proposed class notice to the Court for approval. The notice will notify all class members of the
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
3
1
certification of the class and will meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), except
2
that it will not notify class members of a right to be excluded from the class.
3
4
Dated: May 9, 2011
LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE,
RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
5
By:
6
7
Dated: May 9, 2011
NARDELL CHITSAZ
& ASSOCIATES LLP
8
By:
9
/s/ Lindsay Nako
Lindsay Nako
10
/s/ J. Timothy Nardell
J. Timothy Nardell
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11
12
13
14
15
Dated: May 9, 2011
TRUCKER HUSS, APC
By:
/s/ R. Bradford Huss
R. Bradford Huss
Attorneys for Defendants
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
4
1
2
3
ATTESTATION
I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by
a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document and supporting declarations.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Dated: May 9, 2011
By:
/s/ Lindsay Nako
Lindsay Nako
LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE,
RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
476 9th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 839-6824
Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
5
1
2
ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION
Having reviewed the parties’ Stipulation to Class Certification in the matter of Orsolini v.
3
Mead Clark Lumber Co. et al., Case No. C-10-04478 (SBA), and the Declarations of Teresa S.
4
Renaker and J. Timothy Nardell submitted therewith, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
5
1. This matter shall be certified as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A),
6
23(b)(1)(B), and/or 23(b)(2) as to the Claim for Relief set forth in the Complaint, for the
7
following reasons:
8
9
10
a. The proposed class of approximately 200 plan participants and their beneficiaries
is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
b. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA §502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C.
11
§1132(a)(2), pertaining to the investment of plan assets, raises questions of law
12
and fact common to the class.
13
c. The claims of Plaintiffs Orsolini and Levine are typical of the claims of the class.
14
d. Plaintiffs Orsolini and Levine will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
15
16
the class.
e. Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B) is appropriate because
17
adjudications with respect to the individual named plaintiffs, as a practical matter,
18
will be dispositive of the interests of individuals who are not parties to the
19
individual adjudications. In addition, this action is equivalent to “an action which
20
charges a breach of trust by an indenture trustee or other fiduciary similarly
21
affecting the members of a large class of… beneficiaries, and which requires an
22
accounting or like measures to restore the subject of the trust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
23
Advisory committee note, 1966 amendment.
24
f. Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) is also appropriate because the
25
prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of
26
inconsistent adjudications that would require Defendants to follow incompatible
27
courses of conduct. For example, Defendants would not be able to act
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
6
1
consistently if the Plan’s investments are declared imprudent in one case but not
2
another.
3
g. Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is also appropriate because
4
Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class and Plaintiffs
5
have sought injunctive and declaratory relief. If Plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the
6
injunctive and declaratory relief granted by the Court would affect the class as a
7
whole.
8
h. The law firms of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., and Nardell
9
Chitsaz & Associates, LLP, have done significant work in identifying and
10
investigating potential claims in the action; have experience in handling class
11
actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in this case;
12
have demonstrated knowledge of the applicable law; and have the necessary
13
resources to commit to representing the class.
14
2. The Class shall be defined as follows: All persons who are or were participants in the
15
Plan on or after October 1, 2008, and as to each such person, his or her beneficiaries,
16
alternate payees, representatives, and successors in interest; provided, however, that
17
notwithstanding the foregoing, the class does not include any person who is an individual
18
defendant in this lawsuit or any individual defendant’s immediate family member,
19
beneficiary, alternate payee, representative, or successor in interest, except for immediate
20
family, beneficiaries, alternate payees, representatives, or successors-in-interest who
21
themselves are or were participants in the Plan, who shall be considered members of the
22
class with respect to their own Plan accounts.
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Plaintiffs Mario L. Orsolini and Andrew M. Levine are appointed as class
representatives.
4. Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., and Nardell Chitsaz & Associates, LLP,
are appointed as class counsel.
5. Within 60 days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed class notice to the Court
for approval. The notice will notify all class members of the certification of the class and
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
7
1
will meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), except that it will not notify
2
class members of a right to be excluded from the class.
3
4
5
Dated: _6/13/11
_______________________
Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION [Case No. C-10-04478 SBA]
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?